The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 29-10-1991 passed by Vth Addl. Ses sions Judge, Lucknow convicting him under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further undergo six months R. I. 2. The appellant as well as Ashfaq Alam deceased both were residents of Bihar. The deceased hailed from Purnia district of Bihar. Both were young persons in their twenties. Within the jurisdiction of Hazratganj Police Station in Nanpara House, Star Montessori School was functioning of which P. W. 4 Mohd. Zameer was the Manager. P. W. 6 Khilawan was working as Chowkidar of the school and used to reside in a room of that building. The deceased as well as the appellant were working as watch repairers in two different watch shop although owned by same per son, situated in Aminabad area. The Manager of the school had rented out a room in the building of the school to the deceased and the appellant where they used to reside. P. W. 2 Wasiqur Rahman complainant also belonged to Purnia dis trict of Bihar. Father of the deceased had taught the complainant in a Primary School there. 3. The murder of Ashfaq Alam took place during the night of 17/18-10-1989 in the same room in which he and the appel lant used to reside together which was a part of the school building. This murder was not seen by anyone. P. W. 3 Dr. Heera Lal Mehrotra had conducted post-mor tem examination of the deadbody of Ash faq Alam on 19-10-1989 at 2. 30 p. m. He found multiple incised wounds on dif ferent parts of the body which according to him would have been inflicted during the night of 17/18-10-1989. According to Dr. Mehrotra Ashfaq Alam died because of ante-mortem injuries inflicted on him. 4. F. I. R. of the case was lodged by P. W. 2 Wasiqur Rahman on 18-10-1989 at 10. 30 a. m. at Hazratganj Police Station in which none has been named as an accused. How ever, it is mentioned that his suspicion was that the appellant had committed the mur der of Ashfaq Alam. It is mentioned in the F. I. R. that P. W. 4 Mohd. Zameer came to the house of the complainant at about 8. 30 a. m. at Hazratganj Police Station in which none has been named as an accused. How ever, it is mentioned that his suspicion was that the appellant had committed the mur der of Ashfaq Alam. It is mentioned in the F. I. R. that P. W. 4 Mohd. Zameer came to the house of the complainant at about 8. 00 a. m. and informed him that P. W. 6 Khilawan Chowkidar had informed P. W. 4 Mohd. Zameer that deadbody of Ashfaq Alam was lying in the room where the appellant and the deceased used to reside. Deadbody was bearing injuries and blood was lying in the room. The appellant was missing. It is also mentioned in the F. I. R. that since Ashfaq Alam deceased had no relations in Lucknow city, therefore writ ten report was being lodged by Wasiqur Rahman P. W. 4. Investigation was com menced by P. W. 7 Ram Prasad Bharti, In spector of Hazratganj Police Station. He recovered two Inland letters one of which was addressed to the appellant and the other was addressed to the deceased. He also recovered samples of blood-stained and simple earth. He prepared a recovery memo regarding personal articles of the deceased. The blood-stained clothes of the deceased were also recovered. Similarly, blood- stained cot etc. were also recovered. He interrogated the witnesses examined by prosecution in this case on the same day and prepared the site plan. 5. Investigation was completed by P. W. 9 Inspector R. P. Singh who submitted charge-sheet after the accused was ar rested. Proceedings under Section 82/83, Cr. P. C. had to be drawn against the appel lant before he could be arrested. 6. The prosecution had examined 9 witnesses in all, out of whom P. W 2 Wasi qur Rahman is the complainant. P. W. 4 Mohd. Zameer is Manager of the School. P. W. 6 Khilawan is Chowkidar of the School, and P. W. 8 Km. Shamim Bano had turned hostile. P. W. 1 Syed Fakhrool Hasan had prepared Chik F. I. R. P. W. 5, Constable Ayodhya Prasad had taken the deadbody for post-mortem examination. P. W. 3 Dr. Heera Lal Mehrotra had con ducted autopsy of the deadbody of the deceased and the remaining two witnesses are formal. 7. No eye-witness account is avail able in his case and, therefore, prosecu tion case hinges on circumstantial evidence. P. W. 3 Dr. Heera Lal Mehrotra had con ducted autopsy of the deadbody of the deceased and the remaining two witnesses are formal. 7. No eye-witness account is avail able in his case and, therefore, prosecu tion case hinges on circumstantial evidence. It was stated by P. W. 6 Khilawan Chowkidar of the school building in a room of which this murder had taken place, that at about 9. 00 p. m. he had seen the appellant and the deceased coming into the room during night. He was awakened by sound of the opening of the gate of the premises, one key of which used to remain with the appellant and the deceased and he saw the appellant going out of the gate of the premises with blood-stained clothes and blood- stained hands. It is significant to find that P. W. 2 Wasiqur Rahman had lodged F. I. R. on the basis of the information given to him by P. W. 4 Mohd. Zameer who was Manager of the School. P. W. 4 Mohd. Zameer stated that information regarding murder of Ashfaq Alam was given to him by P. W. 6 Khilawan. It is strange to find that in spite of this information having been given by Khilawan there is no mention in the F. I. R. that immediately after the murder the ap pellant was seen going out of the gate with blood- stained clothes and hands. Only this much has been mentioned in the F. I. R. that the complainant had suspicion that the deceased was done to death by the appellant. The prosecution has also neither given any evidence regarding mo tive nor anything had appeared during in vestigation. The motive may not be very material in those cases where eye-witness account is available but where the case depends upon the circumstantial evidence, the motive assumes its own im portance. Not only that, there is no evidence of motive but on the other hand P. W. 6 Khilawan admitted that he had never seen the appellant and the deceased quarrelling with each other. On the other hand, he has seen them living with amity. Learned Additional Government Advo cate urged that the appellant owed an ex planation as to how murder of Ashfaq Alam was committed when he was also present in the room. On the other hand, he has seen them living with amity. Learned Additional Government Advo cate urged that the appellant owed an ex planation as to how murder of Ashfaq Alam was committed when he was also present in the room. It is no doubt true that the appellant should have in ordinary course given an explanation but this cir cumstance alone is not sufficient to up hold conviction of the appellant because it does not lead to the only inference that it was appellant alone and none else who had committed this murder. Suspicion, howsoever strong it may be, cannot sub stitute for proof. The room where murder was committed is situated in the outer part of the building which is easily accessible from the gate, and therefore, possibility that there was another person also in the room of the deceased, cannot be ruled out. Khilawan stated that boundary wall of the premises was 3-4 high whereas the Manager Mohd. Zameer stated that it was 7 high. Whatever height of the boundary wall is taken it was not difficult for any one to have crossed the boundary and come into the room where the deceased and appellant were living. 8. It is also worthy of notice that P. W. 2 Wasiqur Rahman complainant stated that he wrote the F. I. R. according to the direc tions of the Police and therefore, the F. I. R. has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Khilawan also admitted that the appellant and the deceased frequently used to go out during night time. The complainant came to know about the incident a about 8. 00 a. m. and he took more than 2-1/2 hrs. to lodge the F. I. R. whereas the Police Station is situated at a stones throw distance from the place of occurrence. 9. In view of the above, the prosecu tion has failed to bring home the guilt against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is extended benefit of doubt. 10. The appeal is accordingly al lowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are hereby set aside. The appel lant is acquitted for the offence under Sec tion 302, I. P. C. He is in Jail. He shall be released from jail forthwith unless wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.